Topic: Father Seraphim Rose

[jckstraw72]

i would highly recommend every single one of his books, and certianly his biography by Fr. Damascene. they are all excellent and thoroughly Orthodox!

[Pravoslavbob]

i would highly recommend every single one of his books, and certianly his biography by Fr. Damascene. they are all excellent and thoroughly Orthodox!

I guess that depends on your point of view.

[jckstraw72]

i guess that reply was completely unnecessary. the OP asked for our advice on his books.

[Vlad]

I have been intrigued by him for awhile and have read two of his books. I understand he is quite controversial what does everyone think of his works.

[John of the North]

I have been intrigued by him for awhile and have read two of his books. I understand he is quite controversial what does everyone think of his works.

He has very good works. He also has works I would disagree with.

[Asteriktos]

This thread might be of interest to you. My views of him now are more negative than they were when I posted in that thread. Suffice to say, with the exception of his book on Augustine, I find the books that he edited (or that were written about him) to be more helpful than the books he wrote.

[GabrieltheCelt]

I enjoy most of his writings, though he was probably too over zealous in regards to the toll-house issue.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I have to agree with Asteriktos.  Besides The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church and the pieces he edited, I wouldn't recommend any of his works.  When attending a Slavic parish, I remember them pushing his works more.  When I attended a Greek parish, the Priest never mentioned him or even recommended staying away from his works.

[Michael L]

I love Fr. Seraphim Rose and would highly reccomend his books. I feel he took the Areial Toll House teaching too literal and it has given him a bad reputation among some. However, if you can get past this flaw I feel he is wonderful. IMHO, his biography Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and His Works<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=mmasupremacyc-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0232524726" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" /> should be required reading for all American converts to Orthodoxy.

In the introduction to the Russian version of this book, Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff, Rector of the Holy Transfiguration Cathedral in Los Angeles, notes:

The greatest of Fr Seraphim’s contributions was his oft-repeated call to Orthodox Christians to follow “the royal path,” to proceed along a deliberate, middle path, avoiding both extremes: on the right, unmitigated rigor, a tendency towards fanaticism, and on the left, leaning towards weakening, leading to modernism and ecumenism. He writes: “We may say that the ‘royal path’ of true Orthodoxy today is a mean that lies between the extremes of ecumenism and reformism on the one side, and a ‘zeal not according to knowledge’ (Romans 10:2) on the other."

I would also highly reccomend:God's Revelation to the Human Heart<img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=traditionalorthodoxy-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0938635034" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />

[jckstraw72]

just out of curiosity -- why do people think he took the toll-houses too literally? His chapter on the toll-houses has quite a lengthy explanation about how they are figurative and not literal. he specifically says that they are simply human language attempting to explain a spiritual reality as best as possible but that they aren't literal.

[Heorhij]

I read preciously little of what he wrote, but what I read written by him about biological evolution, I consider a lunacy and a complete, blatant ignorance. Just IMHO. Sorry, Father Seraphim, I know you were a good man, pray for me, a sinner.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

I read preciously little of what he wrote, but what I read written by him about biological evolution, I consider a lunacy and a complete, blatant ignorance. Just IMHO.

Here, here.

[Vlad]

I liked The Soul after Death myself. Just my opinion though. But it didnt seem that bad to me.

[jckstraw72]

what he wrote about Genesis was directly quoted from the Fathers ...

[Asteriktos]

what he wrote about Genesis was directly quoted from the Fathers ...

And we all know that one couldn't possibly be giving a biased viewpoint if they are quoting the Fathers, right? 

[Entscheidungsproblem]

what he wrote about Genesis was directly quoted from the Fathers ...

Yes, well, the Bible isn't a science textbook and the Fathers lacked modern scientific knowledge.  It is a rather poor excuse to continue to embrace ignorance.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Jckstraw72:
Don't fall into their trap! Personally, I will trust the views of Father Seraphim Rose and the Church Fathers over those of our resident atheists here on OC.net. Let them hurl the accusations of "ignorance," etc. at us. Their insults only verify the Truth we know.

Selam

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Jckstraw72:
Don't fall into their trap! Personally, I will trust the views of Father Seraphim Rose and the Church Fathers over those of our resident atheists here on OC.net. Let them hurl the accusations of "ignorance," etc. at us. Their insults only verify the Truth we know.

Selam

I'm sure the countless modern Orthodox evolutionary biologists, astrophysicists, geologists, archaeologists, chemists, etc. would agree Orthodoxy is the Truth, but would disagree with a plethora of what the Fathers said about the natural world (speculation being replaced by science).  

Riddikulus' signature, for example, always makes me smile.   

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Jckstraw72:
Don't fall into their trap! Personally, I will trust the views of Father Seraphim Rose and the Church Fathers over those of our resident atheists here on OC.net. Let them hurl the accusations of "ignorance," etc. at us. Their insults only verify the Truth we know.

Selam

I'm sure the countless modern Orthodox evolutionary biologists, astrophysicists, geologists, archaeologists, chemists, etc. would agree Orthodoxy is the Truth, but would disagree with a plethora of what the Fathers said about the natural world (speculation being replaced by science).  

No doubt that they would. But, personally, I see far more enlightenment in the wisdom of the ancient Fathers than in these post-modern Orthodox evolutionary biologists. I trust the Holy Spirit more than the spirit of this age. But hey, that's just me. Believe whatever you wish.

Selam 

[Entscheidungsproblem]

But hey, that's just me. Believe whatever you wish.

To each his own, I suppose.  I see far more enlightenment in the study of the Earth, the cosmos, our origins, etc., which is why I must applaud the Vatican as of late, for the variety of scientific conference and pursuits they spearhead (a welcome change from their past  ).  Since Orthodoxy is structured very differently, I doubt such a concentrated undertaking would occur within it, but a greater focus on the natural sciences could only be beneficial to her.  To steal a bit from Dr. Sagan, it "might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths".  It really troubles me when science is dubbed "new-age" and not taken seriously by those in religious authority.  It possess such a humbling, awe-inspiring feeling that some find nowhere else, and for others, it renews their faith in the "something more" (higher power).

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

But hey, that's just me. Believe whatever you wish.

To each his own, I suppose.  I see far more enlightenment in the study of the Earth, the cosmos, our origins, etc., which is why I must applaud the Vatican as of late, for the variety of scientific conference and pursuits they spearhead (a welcome change from their past  ).  Since Orthodoxy is structured very differently, I doubt such a concentrated undertaking would occur within it, but a greater focus on the natural sciences could only be beneficial to her.  To steal a bit from Dr. Sagan, it "might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths".  It really troubles me when science is dubbed "new-age" and not taken seriously by those in religious authority.  It possess such a humbling, awe-inspiring feeling that some find nowhere else, and for others, it renews their faith in the "something more" (higher power).

Opposing macro evolution is not synonymous with opposing the study of the earth, the cosmos, or its origins. To imply such is to condemn the Fathers as being unconcerned with the glorious mysteries of divine creation. But even a cursory reading of the Fathers shows just the opposite. And some of the greatest scientific discoveries came from devout Christians whose recognition of the Creator enabled them to discern inherent order and purpose in universal creation. Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler immediately come to mind.

Selam

[Asteriktos]

Jckstraw72:
Don't fall into their trap! Personally, I will trust the views of Father Seraphim Rose and the Church Fathers over those of our resident atheists here on OC.net. Let them hurl the accusations of "ignorance," etc. at us. Their insults only verify the Truth we know.

Selam

Sorry, we only have one "resident atheist"™, and he hasn't chimed in here. Also, see my signature, it's very applicable.

[Riddikulus]

But hey, that's just me. Believe whatever you wish.

To each his own, I suppose.  I see far more enlightenment in the study of the Earth, the cosmos, our origins, etc., which is why I must applaud the Vatican as of late, for the variety of scientific conference and pursuits they spearhead (a welcome change from their past  ).  Since Orthodoxy is structured very differently, I doubt such a concentrated undertaking would occur within it, but a greater focus on the natural sciences could only be beneficial to her.  To steal a bit from Dr. Sagan, it "might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths".  It really troubles me when science is dubbed "new-age" and not taken seriously by those in religious authority.  It possess such a humbling, awe-inspiring feeling that some find nowhere else, and for others, it renews their faith in the "something more" (higher power).

Opposing macro evolution is not synonymous with opposing the study of the earth, the cosmos, or its origins. To imply such is to condemn the Fathers as being unconcerned with the glorious mysteries of divine creation. But even a cursory reading of the Fathers shows just the opposite. And some of the greatest scientific discoveries came from devout Christians whose recognition of the Creator enabled them to discern inherent order and purpose in universal creation. Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler immediately come to mind.

Selam

Gebre,
Are you sure that you don't mean naturalistic evolution instead of "macro-evolution"? I ask this simply because it doesn't seem to make any sense to single out and oppose macro evolution when it is merely micro-evolution on a grand scale. I can understand a Christian opposing naturalistic evolution if the philosophy behind the opinions of some amounts to "there ain't no God", something that science can not decide. But opposing macro-evolution...? 

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Gebre,
Are you sure that you don't mean naturalistic evolution instead of "macro-evolution"? I ask this simply because it doesn't seem to make any sense to single out and oppose macro evolution when it is merely micro-evolution on a grand scale. I can understand a Christian opposing naturalistic evolution if the philosophy behind the opinions of some amounts to "there ain't no God", something that science can not decide. But opposing macro-evolution...? 

I have to echo Riddikulus.  I have absolutely no problem with someone who believes in theistic evolution as a way to reconcile science with religion.  I believe one day, future generations will be reading from Church Fathers who support theistic evolution, and portray past Fathers scientific viewpoints as being "those of their time".  It doesn't bother me that people in the past believed in a literal or allegorical version of Genesis, since that was really the only explanation at the time.  We have come a very long way since then.  My problem with Father Seraphim Rose is that he was a modern writer and had potentially so much information at hand, but rather he portrays evolution incorrectly and then focuses mostly on accounts from a past before modern science.  Some of my personal heroes were devout Christians who strongly believed God was influencing their lives (Cantor would definitely be near the top of my list), but it didn't stop them constantly pursuing mathematical and scientific facts and pushing boundaries.  A religion that does not embrace science is committing suicide.

[Riddikulus]

Gebre,
Are you sure that you don't mean naturalistic evolution instead of "macro-evolution"? I ask this simply because it doesn't seem to make any sense to single out and oppose macro evolution when it is merely micro-evolution on a grand scale. I can understand a Christian opposing naturalistic evolution if the philosophy behind the opinions of some amounts to "there ain't no God", something that science can not decide. But opposing macro-evolution...? 

I have to echo Riddikulus.  I have absolutely no problem with someone who believes in theistic evolution as a way to reconcile science with religion.  I believe one day, future generations will be reading from Church Fathers who support theistic evolution, and portray past Fathers scientific viewpoints as being "those of their time".  It doesn't bother me that people in the past believed in a literal or allegorical version of Genesis, since that was really the only explanation at the time.  We have come a very long way since then.  My problem with Father Seraphim Rose is that he was a modern writer and had potentially so much information at hand, but rather he portrays evolution incorrectly and then focuses mostly on accounts from a past before modern science.  Some of my personal heroes were devout Christians who strongly believed God was influencing their lives (Cantor would definitely be near the top of my list), but it didn't stop them constantly pursuing mathematical and scientific facts and pushing boundaries.  A religion that does not embrace science is committing suicide.

Exactly. I can't tell you how many people I have seen put up this pseudoscience wall to others accepting Christianity, all because they placed them in the position of choosing Medieval beliefs about the cosmos over modern science. This is untenable. One's opinion on science is not a condition for accepting or denying Christ, but some have made it so. It's as if, for them, Christianity is trapped in a scientific time warp - only with regard to the Theory of Evolution, of course - and as far as they are concerned anyone who accepts the evidence of modern science is a child of the devil and only those who accept pseudoscience belong to Christ. Fortunately, that is not the case within Orthodoxy but books like Fr Seraphim's only serve a dividing purpose if they are elevated beyond their worth. I would hate to see this subject become an issue of gauging one's spirituality amongst Orthodox faithful. 

We have strayed from the point of the thread, but with regard to Fr Se raphim Rose, I will say this. I would steer clear of his writings if one wished to investigate a balanced view of Orthodoxy and science, in fact a more balanced view of Orthodoxy. That's just my opinion and no one has to agree, but I see traits of extremism in everything that I have read of Fr Seraphim's. I will say this, though: he has always struck me as a most genuine man, but in many instances he has spoken outside his area of expertise. I honestly don't mean to be offensive in saying this, but we really have to be careful that we don't use the opinion of one man to limit Orthodox thinking to that of the ancient fathers with regard to science. 

Forgive me, if I offend.

[simplygermain]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized. Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride. To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness. IE: If mankind uses his faculties and comes to (x) as the causes, than (x) is not challengeable even by God Himself.
"Lean not on our own understandings."

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

[Riddikulus]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized. Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride. To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness. IE: If mankind uses his faculties and comes to (x) as the causes, than (x) is not challengeable even by God Himself.
"Lean not on our own understandings."

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

<sigh>

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Dear Riddikulus: I have responded below in red.

One's opinion on science is not a condition for accepting or denying Christ, but some have made it so.  

I feel like any Christian that doesn't accept the theory of macro evolution is condemned as being anti-science. But this condemnation is inaccurate, arrogant, and narrow-minded. Science is at its best when scientific theories are subservient to the facts, not when facts become subservient to theories.  

 I would steer clear of his (Father Seraphim's) writings if one wished to investigate a balanced view of Orthodoxy and science, in fact a more balanced view of Orthodoxy. That's just my opinion and no one has to agree, but I see traits of extremism in everything that I have read of Fr Seraphim's. I will say this, though: he has always struck me as a most genuine man, but in many instances he has spoken outside his area of expertise.

It seems to me that a balanced view would seriously consider Father Seraphim's views on evolution along with other Orthodox views on the matter. For example, Kallistos Ware accepts evolutionary theory. While I don't find Ware's arguments on behalf of evolution very compelling, I would nevertheless encourage others to read and contemplate the views of both Kallistos Ware and Father Rose. This would be balanced, would it not?

But anyway, I agree that we shouldn't turn this thread into a debate on evolution.

Selam

[simplygermain]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized. Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride. To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness. IE: If mankind uses his faculties and comes to (x) as the causes, than (x) is not challengeable even by God Himself.
"Lean not on our own understandings."

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

<sigh>

Sigh if you must. I'm not made for this world anyway.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized. Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride. To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness. IE: If mankind uses his faculties and comes to (x) as the causes, than (x) is not challengeable even by God Himself.
"Lean not on our own understandings."

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

Yes. Problems always arise when the finite views of man are elevated as the primary arbiter and the sole interpreter of infinite realities.

Selam

[simplygermain]

^ and selam to you, as well.

[Riddikulus]

Dear Riddikulus: I have responded below in red.

One's opinion on science is not a condition for accepting or denying Christ, but some have made it so.  

I feel like any Christian that doesn't accept the theory of macro evolution is condemned as being anti-science. But this condemnation is inaccurate, arrogant, and narrow-minded. Science is at its best when scientific theories are subservient to the facts, not when facts become subservient to theories.  

 I would steer clear of his (Father Seraphim's) writings if one wished to investigate a balanced view of Orthodoxy and science, in fact a more balanced view of Orthodoxy. That's just my opinion and no one has to agree, but I see traits of extremism in everything that I have read of Fr Seraphim's. I will say this, though: he has always struck me as a most genuine man, but in many instances he has spoken outside his area of expertise.

It seems to me that a balanced view would seriously consider Father Seraphim's views on evolution along with other Orthodox views on the matter. For example, Kallistos Ware accepts evolutionary theory. While I don't find Ware's arguments on behalf of evolution very compelling, I would nevertheless encourage others to read and contemplate the views of both Kallistos Ware and Father Rose. This would be balanced, would it not?

But anyway, I agree that we shouldn't turn this thread into a debate on evolution.

Selam

As I said - this is just my opinion on Fr Seraphim's writings, which is what this thread is supposedly about. It's a specific question regarding one Orthodox writer; not many.

edited - and I just realised that it was you who asked this question:

Can anyone recommend the writings of Father Seraphim Rose? I am thinking about getting the book of His Life and Works. I don't know much about him, but this book seems very interesting. I am new to Orthodoxy, and I am also EOTC Non-Chalcedonian. Do you think that this man's writings would be helpful to me, or should I avoid him? Thank you for any insight you can give me.

You get answers and then, because you don't seem to like them you get annoyed and clearly question the insight of those who take your question seriously enough to suggest caution in approaching his works. I mean, what is that? Did you set this thread up to catch out the "anti-Fr Seraphim" crowd? If you wished to exclude negative reviews, why did you couch the question in terms that allowed them in the first place?

[Riddikulus]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized. Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride. To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness. IE: If mankind uses his faculties and comes to (x) as the causes, than (x) is not challengeable even by God Himself.
"Lean not on our own understandings."

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

Yes. Problems always arise when the finite views of man are elevated as the primary arbiter and the sole interpreter of infinite realities.

Selam

Exactly, and we have all seen on this forum Fr Seraphim's views on evolution - finite views of one man - elevated as the primary arbiter and sole interpreter of infirnite realities.

[John of the North]

Yes. Problems always arise when the finite views of man are elevated as the primary arbiter and the sole interpreter of infinite realities.

Selam

Except you have limited your own understanding of Creation to that provided by the Old Testament. The OT is not a book that was written to provide precise scientific commentary but it was designed to indicate the fallen nature of humanity and to prefigure the coming of the New Adam, Jesus Christ.

Not to mention the fact that the OT is not an infallible document, as it was "filtered through the passions of the men who recorded it, and interpreted in terms of what they could see with the unaided eye." (cf. Archbishop Lazar)

Why should we limit our understanding of the cosmos to that written in the books of Genesis?? It seems that to do so limits God just as much as relying too heavily on science.

[simplygermain]

Yes. Problems always arise when the finite views of man are elevated as the primary arbiter and the sole interpreter of infinite realities.

Selam

Except you have limited your own understanding of Creation to that provided by the Old Testament.

Where did he do that? Did I miss something. It seemed pretty clear to me...

[John of the North]

Yes. Problems always arise when the finite views of man are elevated as the primary arbiter and the sole interpreter of infinite realities.

Selam

Except you have limited your own understanding of Creation to that provided by the Old Testament.

Where did he do that? Did I miss something. It seemed pretty clear to me...

Personally, I will trust the views of Father Seraphim Rose and the Church Fathers over those of our resident atheists here on OC.net.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Dear Riddikulus: I have responded below in red.

One's opinion on science is not a condition for accepting or denying Christ, but some have made it so.  

I feel like any Christian that doesn't accept the theory of macro evolution is condemned as being anti-science. But this condemnation is inaccurate, arrogant, and narrow-minded. Science is at its best when scientific theories are subservient to the facts, not when facts become subservient to theories.  

 I would steer clear of his (Father Seraphim's) writings if one wished to investigate a balanced view of Orthodoxy and science, in fact a more balanced view of Orthodoxy. That's just my opinion and no one has to agree, but I see traits of extremism in everything that I have read of Fr Seraphim's. I will say this, though: he has always struck me as a most genuine man, but in many instances he has spoken outside his area of expertise.

It seems to me that a balanced view would seriously consider Father Seraphim's views on evolution along with other Orthodox views on the matter. For example, Kallistos Ware accepts evolutionary theory. While I don't find Ware's arguments on behalf of evolution very compelling, I would nevertheless encourage others to read and contemplate the views of both Kallistos Ware and Father Rose. This would be balanced, would it not?

But anyway, I agree that we shouldn't turn this thread into a debate on evolution.

Selam

As I said - this is just my opinion on Fr Seraphim's writings, which is what this thread is supposedly about. It's a specific question regarding one Orthodox writer; not many.

edited - and I just realised that it was you who asked this question:

Can anyone recommend the writings of Father Seraphim Rose? I am thinking about getting the book of His Life and Works. I don't know much about him, but this book seems very interesting. I am new to Orthodoxy, and I am also EOTC Non-Chalcedonian. Do you think that this man's writings would be helpful to me, or should I avoid him? Thank you for any insight you can give me.

You get answers and then, because you don't seem to like them you get annoyed and clearly question the insight of those who take your question seriously enough to suggest caution in approaching his works. I mean, what is that? Did you set this thread up to catch out the "anti-Fr Seraphim" crowd? If you wished to exclude negative reviews, why did you couch the question in terms that allowed them in the first place?

Easy there Riddikulus. I'm not annoyed at all. I welcome your views, and I gave you mine. I'm not an expert on Father Seraphim Rose. Thanks to the insights from this thread, I have been reading his biography by Hiermonk Damascene. But please don't accuse me of wishing to exclude negative reviews of his works and opinions. Perhaps you misunderstood something I said, or else I didn't communicate it clearly. By all means, please feel free to give me your unvarnished opinions of him.

Selam

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized. Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride. To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness. IE: If mankind uses his faculties and comes to (x) as the causes, than (x) is not challengeable even by God Himself.
"Lean not on our own understandings."

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

Yes. Problems always arise when the finite views of man are elevated as the primary arbiter and the sole interpreter of infinite realities.

Selam

Exactly, and we have all seen on this forum Fr Seraphim's views on evolution - finite views of one man - elevated as the primary arbiter and sole interpreter of infirnite realities.

Well, I haven't read anything on this thread where anyone has said that Father Seraphim Rose is the sole authority on the issue of evolution. But maybe I missed something.

Selam

[Riddikulus]

Dear Riddikulus: I have responded below in red.

One's opinion on science is not a condition for accepting or denying Christ, but some have made it so.  

I feel like any Christian that doesn't accept the theory of macro evolution is condemned as being anti-science. But this condemnation is inaccurate, arrogant, and narrow-minded. Science is at its best when scientific theories are subservient to the facts, not when facts become subservient to theories.  

 I would steer clear of his (Father Seraphim's) writings if one wished to investigate a balanced view of Orthodoxy and science, in fact a more balanced view of Orthodoxy. That's just my opinion and no one has to agree, but I see traits of extremism in everything that I have read of Fr Seraphim's. I will say this, though: he has always struck me as a most genuine man, but in many instances he has spoken outside his area of expertise.

It seems to me that a balanced view would seriously consider Father Seraphim's views on evolution along with other Orthodox views on the matter. For example, Kallistos Ware accepts evolutionary theory. While I don't find Ware's arguments on behalf of evolution very compelling, I would nevertheless encourage others to read and contemplate the views of both Kallistos Ware and Father Rose. This would be balanced, would it not?

But anyway, I agree that we shouldn't turn this thread into a debate on evolution.

Selam

As I said - this is just my opinion on Fr Seraphim's writings, which is what this thread is supposedly about. It's a specific question regarding one Orthodox writer; not many.

edited - and I just realised that it was you who asked this question:

Can anyone recommend the writings of Father Seraphim Rose? I am thinking about getting the book of His Life and Works. I don't know much about him, but this book seems very interesting. I am new to Orthodoxy, and I am also EOTC Non-Chalcedonian. Do you think that this man's writings would be helpful to me, or should I avoid him? Thank you for any insight you can give me.

You get answers and then, because you don't seem to like them you get annoyed and clearly question the insight of those who take your question seriously enough to suggest caution in approaching his works. I mean, what is that? Did you set this thread up to catch out the "anti-Fr Seraphim" crowd? If you wished to exclude negative reviews, why did you couch the question in terms that allowed them in the first place?

Easy there Riddikulus. I'm not annoyed at all. I welcome your views, and I gave you mine. I'm not an expert on Father Seraphim Rose. Thanks to the insights from this thread, I have been reading his biography by Hiermonk Damascene. But please don't accuse me of wishing to exclude negative reviews of his works and opinions. Perhaps you misunderstood something I said, or else I didn't communicate it clearly. By all means, please feel free to give me your unvarnished opinions of him.

Selam

Gebre; remember this?

Jckstraw72:
Don't fall into their trap! Personally, I will trust the views of Father Seraphim Rose and the Church Fathers over those of our resident atheists here on OC.net. Let them hurl the accusations of "ignorance," etc. at us. Their insults only verify the Truth we know.

In going over the posts, as far as I can tell, all but one of the posters who don't recommend Fr Seraphim are Orthodox Christains. I might have missed the hurling of accusations of ignorance etc at you who know the Truth, because of my haste. But just how do you come to the conclusion that Orthodox Christian who don't recommend Fr Seraphim's writngs are setting a trap for you "Truth-knowers"? Didn't you ask for recommendations?

[Pravoslavbob]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized.

I sincerely hope not.  I think that would be a very bad message to send to North America about Orthodoxy.  Just my humble opinion, of course.

Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride.

Funny you should say this.  I have heard it said that Fr. Seraphim used to tell anyone who disagreed with him that they were obviously in a state of prelest.  It must have made any other discussion impossible, since unless one agreed completely with what he said, by his way of thinking one must have been delusional.  But in this instance, it is of course quite easy to say to you: who are you to judge who is in a state of pride and who is not?  And how is this related in any way to the discussion going on here?*

To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness.

Hmmm.  No one around here seems to be doing that, as far as I can see.  

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

Who here besides the agnostics or deists isn't struggling in their own feeble way to put God first?  Have you even bothered to look at the other threads on evolution on this forum?   Why do you appear to assume that people who have an interest in science do not have a sense of awe and wonder about God's glorious creation?

Sigh if you must. I'm not made for this world anyway.

Wow.  I'm amazed that you even deign to interact with us poor misguided louts.  How can we thank you for gracing us with your presence?  



*Rhetorical question.  Please do not attempt to answer.

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Some say, "The Holy Spirit has shown me, and so I know the truth." Others say, "Science has shown me, and so I know the truth." Both are dangerous extremes, IMHO.

Selam

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Some say, "The Holy Spirit has shown me, and so I know the truth." Others say, "Science has shown me, and so I know the truth." Both are dangerous extremes, IMHO.

Selam

For some reason, that reminded me of the following quotation by Galileo:  "I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: 'The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go.'"

[Gebre Menfes Kidus]

Some say, "The Holy Spirit has shown me, and so I know the truth." Others say, "Science has shown me, and so I know the truth." Both are dangerous extremes, IMHO.

Selam

For some reason, that reminded me of the following quotation by Galileo:  "I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: 'The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go.'"

Cool quote.

I would say that the Holy Spirit teaches us that there is a Creator behind the creation, that there is a spiritual realm behind the physical realm, and that apart from acknowledging the Creator and the spiritual realm, we will never discern material or spiritual realities.

Selam

[simplygermain]

Some say, "The Holy Spirit has shown me, and so I know the truth." Others say, "Science has shown me, and so I know the truth." Both are dangerous extremes, IMHO.

Selam

For some reason, that reminded me of the following quotation by Galileo:  "I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: 'The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go.'"

keep quoting Galileo like this and I'm gunna put you on my buddy list!

[simplygermain]

Mark my words. One day soon, we may very well see Blessed Fr. Seraphim cannonized.

I sincerely hope not.  I think that would be a very bad message to send to North America about Orthodoxy.  Just my humble opinion, of course.
Like you said, your opinion vs. mine

Not to say that all of his ideas are somehow infallable, but I think that some of the posters on this thread have fallen into a trap of pride.

Funny you should say this.  I have heard it said that Fr. Seraphim used to tell anyone who disagreed with him that they were obviously in a state of prelest.  It must have made any other discussion impossible, since unless one agreed completely with what he said, by his way of thinking one must have been delusional.  But in this instance, it is of course quite easy to say to you: who are you to judge who is in a state of pride and who is not?  And how is this related in any way to the discussion going on here?*
You're right, I shouldn't judge.

To put so much validity and trust in the reasonings of science, is pure "group vanity" for some mass consciousness.

Hmmm.  No one around here seems to be doing that, as far as I can see.  
If you say so, than it must be so...

(for the science-groupies out there, this isn't an arguement for science not having a place in the world. just an arguement for putting God first and remembering the unknown variables due to our limited consciousness.)

Who here besides the agnostics or deists isn't struggling in their own feeble way to put God first?  Have you even bothered to look at the other threads on evolution on this forum?   Why do you appear to assume that people who have an interest in science do not have a sense of awe and wonder about God's glorious creation?
Why do I appear to assume to you? I was referring to the Atheists and Agnostics.

Sigh if you must. I'm not made for this world anyway.

Wow.  I'm amazed that you even deign to interact with us poor misguided louts.  How can we thank you for gracing us with your presence?  
Your right, It sounded snobby, I meant Mankind is not made for this world.


*Rhetorical question.  Please do not attempt to answer.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone. I was just placing my opinions on the thread like everyone else. Some times my mouth gets ahead of me.